From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35DF5C282DF for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:29:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE3D222AF for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:29:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727436AbfDSS3K (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:29:10 -0400 Received: from out30-43.freemail.mail.aliyun.com ([115.124.30.43]:34073 "EHLO out30-43.freemail.mail.aliyun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726072AbfDSS3J (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:29:09 -0400 X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R191e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04420;MF=yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=6;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0TPjGOrH_1555691304; Received: from US-143344MP.local(mailfrom:yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0TPjGOrH_1555691304) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Sat, 20 Apr 2019 00:28:26 +0800 Subject: Re: [QUESTIONS] THP allocation in NUMA fault migration path To: Mel Gorman Cc: Michal Hocko , Andrea Arcangeli , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , linux-kernel References: <20190418063218.GA6567@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190419111356.GK18914@techsingularity.net> From: Yang Shi Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 09:28:21 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190419111356.GK18914@techsingularity.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4/19/19 4:13 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 09:18:15AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: >> >> On 4/17/19 11:32 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Wed 17-04-19 21:15:41, Yang Shi wrote: >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >>>> >>>> I noticed that there might be new THP allocation in NUMA fault migration >>>> path (migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page()) even when THP is disabled (set to >>>> "never"). When THP is set to "never", there should be not any new THP >>>> allocation, but the migration path is kind of special. So I'm not quite sure >>>> if this is the expected behavior or not? >>>> >>>> >>>> And, it looks this allocation disregards defrag setting too, is this >>>> expected behavior too?H >>> Could you point to the specific code? But in general the miTgration path >> Yes. The code is in migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page() called by >> do_huge_pmd_numa_page(). >> >> It would just do: >> alloc_pages_node(node, (GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT | __GFP_THISNODE), >> HPAGE_PMD_ORDER); >> without checking if transparent_hugepage is enabled or not. >> >> THP may be disabled before calling into do_huge_pmd_numa_page(). The >> do_huge_pmd_wp_page() does check if THP is disabled or not. If THP is >> disabled, it just tries to allocate 512 base pages. >> >>> should allocate the memory matching the migration origin. If the origin >>> was a THP then I find it quite natural if the target was a huge page as >> Yes, this is what I would like to confirm. Migration allocates a new THP to >> replace the old one. >> >>> well. How hard the allocation should try is another question and I >>> suspect we do want to obedy the defrag setting. >> Yes, I thought so too. However, THP NUMA migration was added in 3.8 by >> commit b32967f ("mm: numa: Add THP migration for the NUMA working set >> scanning fault case."). It disregarded defrag setting at the very beginning. >> So, I'm not quite sure if it was done on purpose or just forgot it. >> > It was on purpose as migration due to NUMA misplacement was not intended > to change the type of page used. It would be impossible to tell in advance > if locality was more important than the page size from a performance point > of view. This is particularly relevant if the workload is virtualised and > there is an expectation that huge pages are preserved. I'm not aware of > any bugs whereby there was a complaint that the THP migration caused an > excessive stall. It could be altered of course, but it would be preferred > to have an example workload demonstrating the problem before making a > decision. Thanks a lot for elaborating the idea. I didn't run into any problem at the moment, just didn't get the thinking behind the choice since other page fault paths (i.e. wp) do allocate hugepages more aggressively. >